Debra Saunders
Debra Saunders is a very confident writer, meaning she writes with really no fear of what other people will think. Her columns, for the majority, are always passionately biased towards her opinion. For example, when Saunders writes she finds evidence from many different sources; but they are all to support her opinion. This is not necessarily a bad thing, however what about the other side of the debate? At the end of reading all of Debra’s columns I found myself agreeing with her opinion on the topic. Do you think that had anything to do with her columns only supporting one side? Do you think her goal when writing is to make people agree with her or do you think she is just passionate about the topics she chooses?
You agreeing with her opinions, could mean that her opinion is one that you have already previously agreed with or already had your mind made up before the article had even started. I think though, as a columnist you want to persuade your reader to agree with your opinion or get to see their side of the story. I think that she throws her passion and such a strong belief into her articles because when you show passion for what you are writing about, it shows there is something worth fighting for and that’s what she is doing. She is showing you what she thinks is worth fighting for. If you have someone passionate about what they support, you would rather them than someone who was very passive and uninteresting.
Serena,
I do think the way that your author picked one side helped you agree. My author looked at both sides of the argument. Although mine was partly crazy. Your author could have just been very persuasive about what she was writing about. This could have made you believe her. I think the goal of most columnist is to make you believe what they do. Sometimes people just write to get their feelings out, I do not believe this is the case here. She seems like she is a biased writer by not mentioning the other side of the argument.
I think that had to do with her columns only supporting one side because I have read things from authors like this and this happens to me too. I find myself agreeing with what they said. If you end up agreeing with all of her columns at the end, she definitely said something to make you side with her. I don’t think that’s done on accident. I think that her goal when writing is to make people agree with her but I also believe that she’s passionate about the topics she chooses too. If she never includes the other side of the debate and she only has sources that support her she doesn’t want the reader to know the other side of the argument. But, I think she believes her opinion is true, maybe that’s why she chooses to only write about one side; her side.
It is hard to agree with someone who is only presenting facts from one side of the argument. It would be difficult to say I could agree with this writer because she is biased and therefore only presents the good side of her subject. She does her job as a writer to try and convince you that her opinion is right, but I still would be a bit skeptical. If you researched both sides yourself then you could come up with your own conclusion, but this article could be a good reason and/or starting place to learn about the subject.
Serena, I think that because she is so passionate about her topics, she wants people to agree with her and be on her side. I believe that because she was biased so you only read one side, you ended up agreeing with her because you only saw that one side of the story. How she talks shows that she is confident in what she believes, which makes it more enjoyable and agreeable to a writer. I think that is good so she can get people to agree with her.
Debra Saunders writes very similarly to my columnist, Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly is also not afraid to write how he feels on a particular topic, without worry about who he might hurt or offend. In addition to his strong feelings and bias, he also uses facts and other sources to back up his opinion. They way these two columnists write is very affective in persuading the reader. I do believe that their goal is to persuade the reader of the column. They write on what they feel strongly about, and they want to make you feel the same way that they do. That is why they use facts to back up their opinions, to show that they are credible and have good reasons to feel this way. Their strong desire when they write and the use of facts is great techniques to persuade the reader to agree with them, which I believe is what Debra Saunders intends to do.
I think you agreeing with her on her opinion on the topic is partially due to the fact that the columns only supporting one side. I do believe however that if you truly didn’t believe with her opinion, her presenting her opinion to you would have little effect on what you believed. I think most columnists write opinionated because they want other readers to agree with them, but I also believe they are also passionate about the topics they write about.
I feel that you agreeing with Debra on topics is partially due to her only presenting facts supporting her opinion. Although, I also feel that you may find yourself agreeing with Debra due to possible similar views. I feel that she is trying to to persuade you to agree with her by presenting facts that will sway your opinion. However, I don’t feel that Debra’s main purpose in writing is to persuade you but rather show you her point of view in a passionate way.
Writers who remain biased towards a particular topic have an unusual and powerful power- the power of persuasion. By supporting one side without even acknowledging the other side to the argument, the reader is left with an understanding of what the author is trying to convince the reader and a lack of understanding of the opposing side to the argument. I have been studying a similar columnist over the summer.
I would think Debra Saunders is trying to express just how passionate she is about the topic at hand rather than trying to persuade the audience to go with her opinion. A major key in persuasive writing is disproving the opposing side’s argument. By not even mentioning the opposing side at all, she cannot convince the reader that the other side is wrong, especially if they don’t know anything about the opposing side at all. It is for this reason why I think Debra Saunders is truly passionate towards what she believes.
Serena,
Debra Saunder seems similar to my columnist, Ann Coulter. They both seem to only express their own opinion. Ann Coulter is anything but afraid to let you know her opinion. I think the reason why you agree with Saunder at the end of her writings is because you don’t get to hear the facts of the other side. You’re only going to read the positives of her side, and the negatives of the other. I also believe that she’s passionate about what she writes about, and wants you to agree with her opinion. If she wasn’t passionate about a subject, she wouldn’t write about it. Also, if she didn’t have an opinion on something, she wouldn’t be able to strongly express that opinion.
I believe that Debra Saunders is the kind of columnist that is very passionate towards her work and the example you gave is the very reason why Debra is that way. She may shove her opinion in peoples faces because she wants everyone to know what her perspective on a given topic is to get people to get an idea of what she is like. I feel that is an important quality to have as a writer because if she just gave facts on a topic and let others decide among themselves what they thought it would take the wonder out of the readers mind of what the columnist would think in this scenario, since he or she is a professional. This could provide the reader with maybe a thought they did not encounter while reading the column. In conclusion, I believe Debra does not only provide her opinion strongly and only provide facts behind her side of the story just because she wants people to choose her side, but because imputing her perspective is what she enjoys and feels like it needs to be presented due to her passion for her job.
I think that any column that only includes evidence that supports one side of an issue-the issue that the columnist is on-is definitely biased and trying to sway its readers to agree with that writer’s point of view. For example, there can be countless studies done proving that vaccines don’t cause autism, but if there is even one that does, a writer who is opposed to vaccinations will latch onto this one piece of evidence and portray it as validation for their cause, never letting on that the evidence against their point of view astronomically outweighs the evidence that supports it. I think that, since Debra Saunders uses this method of only showing one side of the evidence, she is most certainly writing to make people agree with her. She wants her point of view to be seen as the valid one, the one that has evidence to back it up. But really, this is only half the truth: the biased, embroidered version of the truth you get when you pick through the evidence and only take those pieces of information that support you. This is not the way that a fair, unbiased columnist would write, even if they were passionate about their opinion.